United States v. 2012-04-30 | 11-50102 | USA V. AMIRHOSSEIN SAIRAFI | nonprecedential | memorandum…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral**
argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
The Honorable Frederic Block, Senior United States District Judge for the***
Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) No. 11-50102
)
Plaintiff – Appellee, ) D.C. No. 2:09-cr-01344-VBF-3
)
v. ) MEMORANDUM*
)
AMIRHOSSEIN SAIRAFI, AKA )
Amir Hossein Sairafi, )
)
Defendant – Appellant. )
)
)
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Valerie Baker Fairbank, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted April 9, 2012**
Pasadena, California
Before: FERNANDEZ and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges, and BLOCK,***
District Judge.
FILED
APR 30 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 4 --

See 18 U.S.C. § 371; see also 50 U.S.C. §§ 1701–06; 31 C.F.R. § 560.204.1
See 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A).2
All references to the sentencing guidelines are to the November 1, 2010,3
version.
See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 977 (9th Cir. 2009); United4
States v. Bibler, 495 F.3d 621, 623–24 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Johnson,
130 F.3d 1352, 1354 (9th Cir. 1997).
Johnson, 130 F.3d at 1354; United States v. Gallagher, 99 F.3d 329, 3345
(9th Cir. 1996).
USSG §2M5.1(a)(1).6
See Johnson, 130 F.3d at 1354.7
2
Amirhossein Sairafi appeals his sentence, which followed his guilty plea to
conspiracy to violate and violation of the laws prohibiting transactions with Iran,1
and to money laundering. We affirm.2
Sairafi asserts that his sentence was unconstitutional because the guideline
calculation relied upon a guideline which is unconstitutionally vague. See USSG
§2M5.1(a)(1). While Sairafi did generally waive his right to appeal his sentence,3
he reserved the right to appeal that sentence on the ground of unconstitutionality,4
and a claim of unconstitutional guideline vagueness is a cognizable claim.5
To prevail, Sairafi must demonstrate that the guideline’s reference to
“national security controls” is unconstitutionally vague as applied to him. That6 7

-- 2 of 4 --

50 U.S.C. § 1701(a).8
Id. at § 1702(a)(1)(B); see also id. § 1704; 50 U.S.C. app. § 2404.9
See, e.g., Exec. Order No. 13,059, Prohibiting Certain Transactions With10
Respect to Iran, 62 Fed. Reg. 44,531, 44,531 (Aug. 19, 1997); Presidential Notice,
Continuation of the National Emergency With Respect to Iran, 75 Fed. Reg. 12,117
(Mar. 10, 2010); see also Exec. Order No. 12,959, Prohibiting Certain Transactions
With Respect to Iran, 60 Fed. Reg. 24,757, 24,757 (May 6, 1995); Exec. Order No.
12,957, Prohibiting Certain Transactions With Respect to the Development of
Iranian Petroleum Resources, 60 Fed. Reg. 14,615, 14,615 (Mar. 15, 1995).
See 31 C.F.R. § 560.204; see also id. § 560.203.11
3
he is unable to do. The statutes make it clear that the President can declare that
another country is an “unusual and extraordinary threat . . . to the national
security,” and that doing so can lead to trade restrictions and export controls8
regarding the country in question. A number of presidents have made that very9
determination about Iran, and regulations which prohibit the sale or supply of10
“any goods, technology, or services” to that country, without a license, have been11
issued. The scope, purposes and bases of those determinations and regulations are
pellucid. See United States v. Mousavi, 604 F.3d 1084, 1090–91 (9th Cir. 2010);
Bassidji v. Goe, 413 F.3d 928, 933–35 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Humanitarian Law
Project v. U.S. Treasury Dep’t, 578 F.3d 1133, 1139–40 (9th Cir. 2009). Put
another way, the guideline did not fail “to give a person of ordinary intelligence
fair notice that it would apply to the conduct contemplated.” Johnson, 130 F.3d at

-- 3 of 4 --

Incidentally, the district court did consider the nature of the goods12
improperly exported when it decided to grant Sairafi a downward variance from
the Guideline range.
4
1354. Because of that lucency, Sairafi, who knew that he was evading export
restrictions, cannot succeed on his vagueness claim.12
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --